[Jimster480]

Yes I understand but you still don't get the 320k. 320 from a personal file that has been done correctly is basically the same as a FLAC. Not from a stream you still lose something no matter what, close yes.

No sorry, you get 320kbps when you are streaming period.
 
Its TCP transfer which means packets are not lost.
 
Because its going over the internet doesn't mean you don't get that quality.

 

[mag3472]

No sorry, you get 320kbps when you are streaming period.

Its TCP transfer which means packets are not lost.

Because its going over the internet doesn't mean you don't get that quality.

Really? So no buffering? No lag spikes? Ect all the normal problems internet connections suffer, all internet providers state this fact not guaranteed. It will show up as 320 but is it? Not guaranteed! You have WiFi interference, Bluetooth, radio and all other forms of interference that come with streaming. This is why we spend so much money with insulated cables and high end filters and such, but it's close, never said it's bad quality.

 

[Jimster480]

Really? So no buffering? No lag spikes? Ect all the normal problems internet connections suffer, all internet providers state this fact not guaranteed. It will show up as 320 but is it? Not guaranteed! You have WiFi interference, Bluetooth, radio and all other forms of interference that come with streaming. This is why we spend so much money with insulated cables and high end filters and such, but it's close, never said it's bad quality.

Buffering is buffering, it has nothing to do with lost bits.
It has to do with making sure that your audio spools incase your net drops a bit (especially while driving or something).
Do you know what happens if there aren't enough bits? Then the audio pauses or stops.
 
If you have something like spotify on "automatic" it will automatically step down to the lower bitrate if your network connection is suffering.
 
If you have it set on Extreme then it will not, you will get 320kbps~ VBR and if you cannot transfer those then your music will not play, it will simply just stutter.
 
Your internet connection speed not being guarenteed has to do with the speeds of other networks you connect to, I suggest you read up a bit on network topology and how the internet works vs claiming that streaming is just lower quality than your local PC (which isn't the case).

 

[mag3472]

Buffering is buffering, it has nothing to do with lost bits.
It has to do with making sure that your audio spools incase your net drops a bit (especially while driving or something).
Do you know what happens if there aren't enough bits? Then the audio pauses or stops.

If you have something like spotify on "automatic" it will automatically step down to the lower bitrate if your network connection is suffering.

If you have it set on Extreme then it will not, you will get 320kbps~ VBR and if you cannot transfer those then your music will not play, it will simply just stutter.

Your internet connection speed not being guarenteed has to do with the speeds of other networks you connect to, I suggest you read up a bit on network topology and how the internet works vs claiming that streaming is just lower quality than your local PC (which isn't the case).

So you get the same sound from your pc on a stream as you would from a file on your PC. Hmmm? OK

 

[Music Alchemist]

So you get the same sound from your pc on a stream as you would from a file on your PC. Hmmm? OK

 
As long as the relevant factors are the same. (Same master of the recording, same bit rate, no botched conversions, etc.)

 

[mag3472]

As long as the relevant factors are the same. (Same master of the recording, same bit rate, no botched conversions, etc.)

Please explain to the guy who made this post, why he can't hear the difference between his ipad and his chord mojo. I would love to know myself. This way I can be better informed and know myself.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Please explain to the guy who made this post, why he can't hear the difference between his ipad and his chord mojo. I would love to know myself. This way I can be better informed and know myself.

 
Oh, I have no way of knowing. There are all sorts of potential reasons.
 
In post #5 he did say that he could hear the difference with one headphone. (Whereas I hear the difference with every headphone...though like I mentioned, I don't use Apple products at this time.)
 
The only way to know which differences you will hear with any piece of equipment is to hear it for yourself.

 

[turkayguner]

You must realize when using streams like tidal, Pandora ect you are using and receiving a compressed file no matter what they say. It will never sound as good as a direct file from your PC and or player! It will sound better but not like if you playing it from your own files. Also Apple products always have issues playing with other products, they don't play well with others lol.

Songs are compressed "in size" not in quality if you play on hifi mode with the hifi subscription. And you even get album masters in 96kHz / 24bits when using the desktop app. You can compare both Tidal version and original masters (yes, some artists give away free 96/24 masters on their sites as downloadable files). I did not do the tests for myself, because I do hear the difference when I stream the non hifi versions on my mobile phone and get back home, switch to my desktop MQA library.
 
For example, I had the original Pink Floyd CDs ripped as 44/16 wav files. Uncompressed. The day Tidal gave access to MQA library, firstly listened the Division Bell album from start to end. Man.. If you have even some decent ears, it is impossible to not to hear the difference between 44/16 original CD and 96/24 Tidal MQA versions.
 
So how come Tidal having some mysterious compression in quality? You know what, it does not.

 

[Jimster480]

  Songs are compressed "in size" not in quality if you play on hifi mode with the hifi subscription. And you even get album masters in 96kHz / 24bits when using the desktop app. You can compare both Tidal version and original masters (yes, some artists give away free 96/24 masters on their sites as downloadable files). I did not do the tests for myself, because I do hear the difference when I stream the non hifi versions on my mobile phone and get back home, switch to my desktop MQA library.
 
For example, I had the original Pink Floyd CDs ripped as 44/16 wav files. Uncompressed. The day Tidal gave access to MQA library, firstly listened the Division Bell album from start to end. Man.. If you have even some decent ears, it is impossible to not to hear the difference between 44/16 original CD and 96/24 Tidal MQA versions.
 
So how come Tidal having some mysterious compression in quality? You know what, it does not.

This is exactly what I was telling him.
It all depends on the sources.
 
Now I will say with Spotify that often with more mainstream music they have other editions which are not as good quality wise.
But with many of the lesser-played music the quality is superb in extreme mode (high quality on desktop client) w/ ~320kbps OGG VBR.
A friend of mine who is a long seasoned audiophile tested out Spotify with his high end setup and said that it is virtually indistinguishable from FLAC tracks in 95%+ of situations.
Those situations most likely arise from the actual sources used by Spotify pre-encode time.

 

[turkayguner]

Well, Spotify is whole another story, for me at least. I subbed to Spotify for like 2 years. Loved it a lot (still love the multi device integration and ui better than Tidal) But I did not think there was any difference in quality between 192kbps and 320kbps streams in Spotify except the data usage. That was why I stuck using it 192kHz during my sub period. And after trying out Tidal hifi with the free trial, sadly cancelled my Spotify premium sub. I suspected that if there was a 192 to 320kbps reconversion going on or I don't know.. Well, I AM pretty sure Tidal is giving the advertised quality to their subs. Because as always, I trust MY ears.

 

[Jimster480]

Well, Spotify is whole another story, for me at least. I subbed to Spotify for like 2 years. Loved it a lot (still love the multi device integration and ui better than Tidal) But I did not think there was any difference in quality between 192kbps and 320kbps streams in Spotify except the data usage. That was why I stuck using it 192kHz during my sub period. And after trying out Tidal hifi with the free trial, sadly cancelled my Spotify premium sub. I suspected that if there was a 192 to 320kbps reconversion going on or I don't know.. Well, I AM pretty sure Tidal is giving the advertised quality to their subs. Because as always, I trust MY ears.

I think that it depends on what you are listening to, and its gotten better with the stuff I listen to.
I can tell the difference between high and extreme on my phone (HTC 10).

 

[turkayguner]

I think that it depends on what you are listening to, and its gotten better with the stuff I listen to.

I can tell the difference between high and extreme on my phone (HTC 10).

Well, then compare the same song in Spotify extreme vs Tidal high quality which both claims they are 320kbps of audio streams. Listen carefully to high and low ends of the spectrum. And also listen to the soundstage. You will notice the difference, it's like night and day. It was, for me, at least.

 

[Jimster480]

Well, then compare the same song in Spotify extreme vs Tidal high quality which both claims they are 320kbps of audio streams. Listen carefully to high and low ends of the spectrum. And also listen to the soundstage. You will notice the difference, it's like night and day. It was, for me, at least.

Tidal is supposed to be FLAC, no?

Really would depend on what the songs were.
 
Tbh for me the point is moot since I wouldn't ever use a service like Tidal anyway. Its expensive as hell for literally nothing, has a horrible collection of music and poor device support aswell as a really shoddy interface and terrible playlists.
 
Its only really for people who spend time all day to make their own playlists and want to listen to the very small library that Tidal has. This is part of the reason my friend went back to Spotify aswell, the library is just too small to make it worth more than $5/mo.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Well, then compare the same song in Spotify extreme vs Tidal high quality which both claims they are 320kbps of audio streams. Listen carefully to high and low ends of the spectrum. And also listen to the soundstage. You will notice the difference, it's like night and day. It was, for me, at least.

 
They could be derived from different masters, though, in which case it would easily sound different. The only proper comparison of this stuff is to take a lossless file, convert it to 320 kbps MP3 with a program like dBpoweramp, then do a controlled listening test. (This can't be done with online streaming.)
 

  Tidal is supposed to be FLAC, no?

Really would depend on what the songs were.
 
Tbh for me the point is moot since I wouldn't ever use a service like Tidal anyway. Its expensive as hell for literally nothing, has a horrible collection of music and poor device support aswell as a really shoddy interface and terrible playlists.
 
Its only really for people who spend time all day to make their own playlists and want to listen to the very small library that Tidal has. This is part of the reason my friend went back to Spotify aswell, the library is just too small to make it worth more than $5/mo.

 
I spent tens of thousands of dollars on music (mostly CDs) and kind of wish these high quality music streaming services existed long ago.
 
Spotify Premium: $9.99/month. 320 kbps. Over 30 million tracks.
TIDAL Premium: $9.99/month. 320 kbps. Over 40 million tracks.
TIDAL HiFi: $19.99/month. Lossless. Over 40 million tracks.
 
If Spotify seems to have a larger library, it's only because it happens to have more artists you were looking for.
 
Both of them are an insanely good value compared to spending so much money on each album via other mediums. (CD, vinyl, downloads, etc.) I mean, it's only the cost of an album or two per month, and you get to listen to countless albums.

 

[Jimster480]

   
They could be derived from different masters, though, in which case it would easily sound different. The only proper comparison of this stuff is to take a lossless file, convert it to 320 kbps MP3 with a program like dBpoweramp, then do a controlled listening test. (This can't be done with online streaming.)
 
 
I spent tens of thousands of dollars on music (mostly CDs) and kind of wish these high quality music streaming services existed long ago.
 
Spotify Premium: $9.99/month. 320 kbps. Over 30 million tracks.
TIDAL Premium: $9.99/month. 320 kbps. Over 40 million tracks.
TIDAL HiFi: $19.99/month. Lossless. Over 40 million tracks.
 
If Spotify seems to have a larger library, it's only because it happens to have more artists you were looking for.
 
Both of them are an insanely good value compared to spending so much money on each album via other mediums. (CD, vinyl, downloads, etc.) I mean, it's only the cost of an album or two per month, and you get to listen to countless albums.

They must have expanded their library alot in the last 1.5 years, because when i tried them last time I searched and searched and honestly didn't really find anything that I listened to other than some of my classical stuff.
Even alot of the Jazz I listen to was missing and nevermind R&B and electronic music... even in the Rap department there was very little (especially in 1995-2005 rap) which is mostly the type of rap i listen to.
 
I do pay $15/mo for Spotify family though and we have 3-4 accounts on there so its a much better value than $20/mo for lossless but $10 for 320kbps is also good.
 
Maybe if it continues to grow I will try it again in the future.